GeorgiaDon

Pretty much. Yuck! Any idea why he's wearing flippers and a diving mask? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks. Good job by the shopkeeper, but not a very "action-packed" video. This reminds me of an article I read once about entomologically-themed superheroes. Since spiders actually have the spinnerets (where the silk thread for the web comes out) on their butt end, an anatomically correct Spiderman would have to bend over and shoot his web out of his ass to catch the bad guys. Not very "heroic" looking, but tons of comic potential. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Video can only be viewed from within the UK. Got another link? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd have been surprised to get a direct answer. It's pretty obviously "code". "If you have to ask you wouldn't understand" sort of thing. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I was just curious why you would post about the oathkeepers in response to the OP rant against allowing muslims into positions of responsibility in the government. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do the "oathkeepers" have a policy of excluding Muslims? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

They aren't threatened with endless litigation if they don't push the limits. It's the combination of the two, plus the part of the law protecting the police against legal action from people who feel they have been unfairly harassed, that is toxic. If you tell the police, "we'll sue you if you don't push it, but we've got your back if you do", what do you think will happen? And how hard is it to get a fake social security card, or a birth certificate? Then you can use your fake birth certificate to get an authentic driver's license, and you're good to go! Look, I'm not arguing that illegal immigration isn't a big problem. I even have an additional (rather peevish) gripe, as I spent thousands of dollars in fees and years waiting on INS/USCIS to take action on various applications (green card, naturalization) so that I and my wife and children could immigrate here legally. It bugs me that people "jump the line", and avoid the waiting, fees, intrusive interrogations, and all that I had to go through. But let's be realistic here. If the goal of the Arizona (and similar) legislation is to eliminate illegal immigration, it's no more likely to succeed than laws outlawing pot have eliminated the drug trade. It's all about supply and demand; as Darius said if there were no jobs for illegals, and no government benefits, there would be no illegals. Face it, the supply of people wanting to come here is endless, as long as the demand (businesses willing to hire cheap illegal labor) exists. Putting a few more barriers in the way, such as getting a real driver's license by using a fake birth certificate, will hardly even slow down the flood of people coming in. Besides, there are real costs, in terms of money and eroded civil rights, to catch, warehouse, and eventually deport all those people. Wouldn't it be better if they stopped coming here illegally of their own accord? I appreciate davjohn's summary of the Arizona law-thanks! There is a lot in the law that I have no problems with. As I said, some combinations of things that seem innocuous in themselves will likely lead to problems. I did read the law, all 17 pages, but it's pretty boring and I may have nodded off and missed a point or two. But, here's the thing: section 6 deals with businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and the penalty for them is (get this) three years PROBATION (not sure how probation will apply to a business), and they lose their business licenses until they (get this) sign an affidavit promising not to do it again! No fine, no jail time for company officers, no loss of the right to bid on state contracts, in short NO financial penalties. How is that supposed to be a deterrent to business from hiring illegals? On the other hand anybody, even a US citizen, can be fined for standing alongside a road and indicating, by word or gesture, that they are available to be hired. WTF? One last thing, I was able to immigrate legally because of my education and technical skills. For the kind of jobs done by most illegal immigrants, there is no legal avenue of immigration available. We seem to need at least some of these people to feed our appetite for cheap food and cheap labor. If we want the cheap food and labor, we need to make a reasonably priced visa that allow these people to come here legally. Supply and demand, people. Kicking ass may make you feel better in the short term, but supply and demand is the solution to the problem. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

+1 Worse yet, it allows any private citizen who thinks the police are not doing everything possible to enforce Federal immigration laws to sue the department. "Reasonable suspicion" is so vague as to be meaningless, so the logical effect of the law will be for the police to push the limits of "reasonable suspicion" as far as they can to avoid endless lawsuits. Alternatively they may do as the TSA does; to avoid the appearance of profiling they will just stop everybody. Those of you who think your blond hair and blue eyes will indemnify you against being hassled may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Once again I will ask what form of ID is sufficient to prove that you are a US citizen. I have asked this several times and each time it's nothing but crickets. If you, an authentic American citizen, are questioned what will you offer to prove your citizenship? Birth certificates are even more easily faked than social security cards, you can't rely on those. A drivers license is issued to legal residents, it isn't any good to prove citizenship. Anti-government paranoia types have killed the national ID card plan, and almost no states adopted the RealID drivers licenses as it was an unfunded mandate from Washington. Although this Arizona law does not explicitly require that US citizens obtain and carry at all times a passport, that is the logical implication as, for most citizens, a passport is the only available proof of citizenship. Under the law, if you can't prove citizenship or legal immigration status you must be detained until your citizenship can be verified by the Federal government. Nice little vacation in Sheriff Arpaio's resort, until you get the thumb's up from a Federal bureaucrat. Show me your papers, comrade. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

SOP for such cases is quarantine (at Animal Control) for 30 days with observation for symptoms. The alternative is testing of course, but that requires removing the brain and sending it to a state lab for testing. As rabies is a relatively slow-growing virus plaque assays and subsequent Western blotting etc takes significantly longer than 30 days. There is only the one lab in the state that is certified to deal with rabies (requires a BSL3 lab), and they are responsible for testing for many pathogens, so even a preliminary PCR assay takes weeks. Either way, if you take a wait and see attitude (which you can choose to do) and the animal is infected, you will have lost a significant amount of time and it may be too late to benefit from post-exposure vaccination. Once the virus enters nerves it is not accessible to antibodies or immune cells, and will ultimately and inevitably travel up the nerve to the central nervous system. Once it reaches the brain it's game over, but your fate is sealed as soon as it gets into even peripheral nerves. The only protection is to generate a neutralizing antibody titer before that happens, so time is of the essence. You might wonder why quarantine dogs instead of testing them directly in every bite case involving an unvaccinated dog. Firstly, if the dog is infected it will almost certainly show typical symptoms in less than 30 days, so you'll have a good idea if the dog is infected or not faster than if you wait for the lab tests. Secondly, every animal sent for testing costs the county several hundred dollars, so if you had a policy of testing every animal you'd be looking at tens of thousands of $$/yr. So, only dogs that show symptoms are sent for confirmatory testing. Hope this helps. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No doubt, and there will be irresistible pressure for other states to follow suit. Yet another example of Americans surrendering freedom in a knee-jerk response to the political need to look like something is being done. What fourth amendment? That's so 18th century! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm not surprised, just ticked off. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Andy, The guy showed up to pay his ticket because he had to in order to reclaim his dog, which had been impounded as it was running loose (a violation of county ordinances) and had bitten a kid who was waiting for his school bus. As the dog had no rabies vaccination (a violation of a state law) the kid is looking at several thousand dollars worth of post-exposure rabies shots. I'd say there's something wrong with that picture. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, at the risk of getting the discussion back on track I've got a couple of comments. Here in Georgia we are seeing a lot of "undocumented immigrants", it's estimated there are over 400,000 in the state now. It's become very common that, when required to produce ID, these people are producing an ID card issued by the Mexican consulate, which they seem to think absolves them of the need to obtain a Georgia driver's license and somehow makes them "legitimate". It seems to me that by issuing these bogus IDs the Mexican government is actively encouraging illegal immigration, and the Federal Government should demand that they stop, or else close the consulate offices. A couple of weeks ago a guy came in to pay a ticket for an ordinance violation. All he had was one of these consulate cards, and when he was told that wasn't acceptable ID and he needed a Georgia drivers license (since he was claiming to be a resident of the County) he said he didn't have or need one because he had this card from his government. Well my wife called the police to report that the guy was driving without a license, and the police said they couldn't come out because they hadn't witnessed him driving. My wife said she would be happy to be a witness, as would another woman in the office with her, and they also had surveillance video of the guy driving into and out of the parking lot. The police still would not take a complaint. That's a problem. Perhaps the issue is that our local county jail is already overcrowded and the county is under a court order to build more space (which will cost us 80 million we don't have), so there isn't any place to warehouse a lot of illegals while the county waits for USCIS to take them. Just as egregious (or even more so) was the guy whose "ID" sort of looked like a drivers license, except at the bottom it said "see other side". When my wife turned it over, it said in big letters "You have no right to question the holder of this card. If you have questions you must contact the law office of... (a local immigration law firm)". So these guys are actively aiding and abetting illegals. Of course the card has no legal force, it's just designed to intimidate people. We are starting to see more and more problems with gang violence here too, plus if you get in a car accident there's a very good chance it will be with an "undocumented immigrant" with no license or insurance, so it's not a trivial issue. It does bother me how the Mexican government and some local entities (such as the law firm) are actively promoting illegal immigation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey! I think I saw your picture in the paper! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Absolutely! How about supporting significant penalties for employers who fail to make reasonable efforts to check employee's social security numbers? Maybe a significant number of contractors or chicken plant CEOs serving long jail sentences after being bankrupted by fines would send a message. If there were no jobs for illegals, there wouldn't be nearly as many people trying to come here. No need to throw US citizens and legal immigrants in jail for forgetting to carry their "papers" when running out to pick up a 6-pack. It would also help if we stopped undercutting Mexican farmers by subsidizing American farmers to sell overseas at less than the cost of production. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder what "proof of citizenship" US citizens are supposed to carry at all times that will satisfy the Arizona law. A birth certificate, especially the "short form", is ludicrously easy to fake; just ask the birthers about that. Does anyone believe that illegals who can get fraudulent social security card and driver's licenses will be stymied by a birth certificate? For those of us who are naturalized citizens, the naturalization certificate is a 9 x 11 inch paper with attached photo, seals and embossments. It isn't designed to be folded up, to fit in a wallet you would have to crease the seals and photos, and a damaged certificate is not legally acceptable proof of citizenship, for example for a passport application. The government does not issue a wallet-sized card version of the document. Perhaps Arizona politicians expect that naturalized citizens will wear around their necks one of those clear plastic-fronted holders for documents, the kind airlines stick on unaccompanied minors? How ridiculous and demeaning is that. Maybe they expect that all US citizens will obtain and carry at all times a passport? That would be perfect proof of citizenship, but it would be a government mandate for everyone to spend their money on a passport even if they don't plan to travel abroad; if such mandates are objectionable when the Federal government does it (health care) why is is OK here? Because it isn't explicit, but only implied by the legislation? How many Americans will be happy to have to make sure to take proof of citizenship with them every single time they leave the house? I expect the law will end up being ruled unconstitutional, as it clearly violates the fourth amendment. Failing that, it will eventually be repealed as hundreds or thousands of US citizens are fined $500 for failing to carry proof of citizenship. For anyone planning to visit Eloy from outside Arizona, be aware that to get there from Phoenix Airport you have to go through Sheriff Arpaio's jurisdiction, and no-one is as aggressive about rounding up so-called "illegals" as he is. Want to run into Phoenix for an evening's entertainment, and you leave your "papers" back at the bunkhouse? Be prepared to spend six months in the sheriff's "hotel". The accommodations are not luxurious, except perhaps by Somalian refugee camp standards. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not that you know about, eh! The stealth invasion is still on. All your base are ours! _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

+1 I review grant proposals for NIH and NSF, as well as some private agencies. I have never once been told to slant my reviews to fit any "government policy". The only criteria we consider is the importance of the research problem and the quality of the experimental plan. I also kind of resent the insinuation that scientists or "the government" have to fabricate problems like Malaria and West Nile so we can have an excuse to suck at the public teat or somehow expand my "power" over the public or whatever. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure you (or someone) will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the military have a very large degree of control over how they decide to use the $$$$$$ they are allocated? Why not cut some of the extremely expensive weapons systems even the military says they don't need, but politicians push because it brings pork to their districts (Georgia, where I live, is one of the worst for this)? And as far as the mission is concerned, why not exercise some restraint and use our troops to defend legitimate national security interests, and not for adventurism to support politician,s dreams of empire building? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm going to have to bookmark that, just so I can pull it up in 7 years. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Pirana, I'm curious about how this could work. It seems to me that if every person is considered completely on their own, instead of being considered as part of a large group, the premiums would have to cover: expected costs of medical care administrative costs of the plan (including huge salaries for the CEOs), and profit margin for shareholders (for publicly traded companies) So, on average an individual purchaser will be worse off buying insurance than they would be just paying out of pocket for medical care. Insurance works by spreading the risk; for a group of people (as in an employer-sponsored group plan) there will be some young, healthy people and some older folks with pre-existing conditions. The insurance company can still make money as long as there are enough healthy young people in the plan to cover the relatively higher expenses associated with the less healthy. If I, as one of those older people facing the increased likelihood of medical problems as I age (not to mention some issues in my family history that increase my risk, and that I can't do anything about because I can't change my genetics), go as an individual to buy health insurance, it seems to me they are under no obligation at all to sell it to me for any less than a premium that would include expected payout, administrative costs, and profit. Basically, taking group coverage out of the picture would only make it really easy for the insurance companies to cherry pick the young and healthy, and exclude everyone else, including practitioners of risky sports such as skydiving. I know you work in this area, so I hope you can explain to me what I am missing here. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, he did say he can't afford a house right now. Considering that medical bills for a bad accident can easily top what you'd pay for a starter house, that's not an unreasonable assumption. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That may well be true. I just think it's interesting that federally mandated caps on compensation will conflict with constitutional rights in many states, which brings up 10th Amendment issues. Personally I think tort reform is needed, but just putting arbitrary caps on compensation that do not take into account harm done is overly simplistic, historically have been shown to have little or no effect on malpractice premiums, and now have been found to be unconstitutional in many states. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No problem, as long as they don't deny 50% more claims.

Tort reform, in particular caps on malpractice awards, are advocated by many, and especially by conservatives, as a solution to escalating health care costs. Most states have already placed caps on non-economic damages (pain and suffering); California did so in 1975 ($250,000 cap under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA). MICRA was then taken as a model by several other states. Unfortunately MICRA failed entirely to prevent the continuous increases in malpractice insurance premiums. The caps do, however, place severe barriers in the way of low-income patients (for example young people at the start of their careers, or retired people), as economic damages are largely assessed in terms of lost earnings. Now there is a new problem: in Georgia the State Supreme Court today ruled unanimously (7-0!) that malpractice caps are unconstitutional. They ruled that caps infringe on the right to a jury trial (by restricting the ability of the jury to decide the appropriate remedy for the injury), on the separation of powers, and on the right to equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled the same way last month, and now caps have been ruled unconstitutional in 12 states (and they have been upheld in 16 others, the difference being in the details of each State's constitution). So here is a dilemma for those of you who have been arguing that the 10th Amendment renders the Federal Health Reform bill ("ObamaCare") unconstitutional: Federal tort reform would infringe on State's rights and be in direct conflict with the constitution of many States. If you support "State's Rights", you can't at the same time support Federal imposition of tort reform on the states, or if you do you're being blatantly hypocritical. What to do? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)